4 ms·
You're assuming there's no derived benefit from belonging to that league of people, but she makes the case that there is a benefit (or benefits) to it, despite
by ddoolin 13y ago
You're assuming there's no derived benefit from belonging to that league of people, but she makes the case that there is a benefit (or benefits) to it, despite admitting it's kind of lame.
It's not the strongest argument, I'll give you that, but I wouldn't know.
- makerops 13y agoI am not making that assumption really; people that are able to really provide someone with benefits, whether it is knowledge, capital, power etc, would scoff at, and see right through the 2500$ handbag. My point being, either 1. you think you can access a level of person that will help you out by owning a 2500$ handbag (stupid) or 2. That there is a group of people that will allow you into their social sphere because you own a 2500$ hand bag, in the end people who think like this in that social sphere, will not be able to do anything for you.
- tghw 13y agoThe price of membership is not a $2500 hand bag. It's having a certain level of presentability. The author makes a poor choice by conflating these two. One can be presentable without blowing a limited budget. But spending 10-25% of your annual take home on a hand bag is, simply, poor decision making.